1. Derbyshire Association of Family Therapy Conference 16 th May 2013. Tania Pombeiro & Tracey Woodcock Norfolk & Suffolk Foundation Trust

2. To inspire multi agency collaboration using reflective ways of working 1. Setting the scene: Introductions with expectations & ‘just a little bit of theory’ about reflecting processes. 2. Bridging the theory to practice gap by taking part in a reflecting team exercise.

3. Chose a picture that: 1. Says something about us by way of introducing ourselves to each other. 2. Says something about the hopes, dreams & expectations we had in mind when you chose to attend/facilitate this workshop. 3. & the worst nightmare we had about working in a reflecting team.

4.  Milan School Observing Team (Boscolo, Cecchin, Hoffman & Penn,1987) Reflecting Team  Collaborative Reflecting Team (Andersen,1985) As If Consultation (Anderson, H., 2012)  Narrative Definitional Ceremonies (White, 1995)  Dialogical Open Dialogue (Seikkula et all, 1995 Resonance Groups (Vedeler, 2010)

5.  Tom Anderson (1987 & 1995) developed the idea of reflection in action with families.  This way of working highlights peoples’ strengths, legitimises people’s positions & opens up new possibilities for addressing problems.  It’s a collaborative & open method with room for clarification of different positions and ideas within the parameters of the agenda.

6.  Multiple reflections in both/and or neither/nor helps us to escape from limiting conversations.  Highlights the richness of different voices and contributes to the emergence of local knowledge that isn’t “too unusual”.  Less concerned with content and therefore less in danger of becoming marooned in attempts to offer others a “better” view or story (Dallos & Draper, 2000).

7.  Be speculative.  Use the client’s speech and the material that was shared in the room.  Relevant to the proceeding conversation.  Not too different from the client’s view.  Comment on the picture of the problem.  Possible explanations for the problem.  Ways in which the family understand their picture of the problem.  Ways in which the family might embrace new pictures of the problem.

8.  Family Therapy Teams  Children who are Looked After Family Therapy Team  ‘Thinking Together’ Consultation

9.  A presenter, an interviewer, a reflecting team

10. 1. Presenter ◦ introduces the difficulty/dilemma ◦ Identifies the main characters (agencies, people) ◦ What is your expectation, hope ? 2. Reflecting Team divided into listening positions (characters). Listening with the whole body (Andersen & Jensen, 2007)! 3. Presenter and interviewer: mapping of dilemma. 4. Reflecting Team acts and talks; presenter listens 5. Post-reflection discussion

11. “Tell us what you would like us to know about the family/dilemma”?  How are relationships organised - in relation to the dilemma, people?  What are the restraints? And the possibilities?  What is defining – and how- your position?  How would your preferred position/ relationship look like?  What, who could fuel it into action?

12.  From the listening positions they are acting from: the reflecting team members move freely in the room in order to sculpt the position that best describes their reaction to/ impression (‘gut feeling’) in relation to what they heard, what resonated with them.  From their physical position: the audience are invited to share their views, wonderings and reflections with one another.

14.  Multi-agency integration needs to take into account how different perspectives are articulated around the domains of: ◦ Explanation ( What is the problem? What is going on?) ◦ Pragmatics (What helps? What skills are needed? ◦ Systemic network (Who should do what? Who has permission?) ◦ Reflection (What tools and what relationships do we use to navigate dilemmas, cultural and Cultural and Organisational difficulties? How do we create and review local knowledge?)  “When a case is told in several living details it becomes memorable” (Burnham,2013)  Reflecting as a performance (Wilson, 2007) – a preparedness for action.  Focusing on collaborative performance in order to promote generative processes.

15.  What has resonated with you the most/ least about today?  What was the most/ least helpful part of the experience?  How might this way of working help in your work with others?  From today what thoughts and ideas might you take into your work with other agencies?

16.  Andersen, T (1987). The Reflecting Team: Dialogue and Meta Dialogue in Clinical Work. Family Process 26:415-428.  Andersen, T (1995). The Reflecting team in action. In: Friedman, S. (ed) Collaborative Practice in Family Therapy. Guildford Press.  Andersen, H. & Jensen, P (2007). Innovations in Reflective Practice. Karnac books.  www.harleneanderson.org www.harleneanderson.org  Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., Hoffman, L., & Penn, P. (1987). Milan Systemic Family Therapy. Conversations in Therapy and Practice. New York: Basic Books.  Dallos, R & Draper, R (2000).An Introduction to Family Therapy. Open University Press.

17.  Clarke, G. And Rowan, A. (2009). Looking again at the team dimension in systemic psychotherapy: is attending to group process a critical context for practice? Journal of Family Therapy, 31:85-107.  Epston, D., White, M. & Ben (1995). Consulting your consultants: A means to the co- construction of alternative knowledges. In Friedman (ed) The Reflective Team in Action: Collaborative Practice in Family Therapy (pp. 277-313). New York: Guildford Press.  Lax, W. (1995) Offering reflections: some theoretical and practical considerations. In Friedman (ed) The Reflective Team in Action: Collaborative Practice in Family Therapy (pp. 145-166). New York: Guildford Press.  Vedeler, A. (2011) Dialogical Practices: Diving into the Poetic Movement. Thesis submitted for degree of Doctorate in Systemic Practice of the University of Bedforshire.  Wilson, J. (2007) The performance of practice: Enhancing the repertoire of therapy with children and Families. London: Karnac.